Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Sh. Lakhvir Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another

DRT6 Mar 2026OA/709/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III, Chandigarh allowed the Bank of Baroda's original application for recovery of Rs. 22,46,892.46 against the legal heirs of a deceased borrower and a guarantor, who failed to appear. The court granted a recovery certificate and fixed future interest at 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Recovery Certificate granted; Defendants liable to pay Rs. 22,46,892.46 jointly and severally with interest at 8% p.a.; Parties to appear before Recovery Officer on 24.03.2026.

Bank of Baroda versus Sh. Lakhvir Singh through His Legal… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.709/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.05.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 06.03.2026

¶6

Bank of Baroda, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its Registered Head Office at Baroda Bhawan, R.C Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda-390007, Gujarat and its Branch Offices throughout India including a branch office at Partap Road, Moga, Punjab-142001 through its Constituted Attorney Smt. Sumeet Kumar, Senior Manager

¶7

……Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Lakhvir Singh S/o Sh. Bahadar Singh (Since Deceased) through his Legal Heirs

¶10

(i) Sh. Ekamveer Singh (Son) (ii) Smt. Sarabjit Kaur (Wife)

¶11

Both Residents of Village Mahesari, District Moga Punjab-142048

¶12

Sh. Gurdeep Singh S/o Sh. Kanail Singh, R/o Village Mahesari, District Moga, Punjab-142048.

¶13

….……Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Ms. Priyanka Jain, Advocate proxy for Ms. Kanchan Sehgal, Advocate for the applicant (Through VC)

¶16

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 21.01.2026

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.22,46,892.46 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Two and Paise Forty Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Smt. Sumeet Kumar, Senior Manager of the applicant, who is

¶19

2 OA/709/2025 BANK OF BARODA VS SH. LAKHVIR SINGH THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER

¶20

competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated16.03.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶21

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant no. 1 (since deceased) approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.19.84 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 02.11.2016, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor.

¶22

The applicant Sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.19.84 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 02.11.2016, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions are accepted by defendants.

¶23

Defendant no. 1 (since deceased) mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land Measuring 48Kanal-07Marla situated at Village Mahesri, District Moga, Punjab, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Jamabandi for the year 2011-12 and 2021-22, which are Annexures A11 and A12 to this OA; Affidavit by the Borrower dated 07.11.2016, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Non Encumbrance Certificate, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Legal Opinion dated 07.11.2016, which Annexure A15 to this OA.

¶24

Documents executed: Death Certificate of defendant no. 1, which is Annexure A2 to this OA; D.P. Note, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Declaration Cum Undertaking Cum Authority, Undertaking (BKCC Line of Credit), General Form of Guarantee, all dated 06.12.2016, which are Annexures A5 to A9 to this OA; Legal Notice, dated 16.05.2025, with postal receipts, which are Annexures A16 & A17 to this OA; Statement of Account, which is Annexure A18 to this OA.

¶25

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.22,46,892.46 which is recoverable and the defendants i.e. legal heirs of deceased defendant no. 1 and the defendant no.2 were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶26

3 OA/709/2025 BANK OF BARODA VS SH. LAKHVIR SINGH THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER

¶27

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.01.2026.

¶28

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Smt. Sumeet Kumar, Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda has been filed.

¶29

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶30

It was argued by learned proxy counsel through video conferencing that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A18 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 (since deceased) approached applicant for availing of the loan facility for which defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. The loan facility was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. They failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 22,46,892.46 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Two and Paise Forty Six Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant bank in relief clause has claimed [email protected] %p.a. with 2% penal interest and monthly rests from 11.05.2025 till the realization. The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester

¶31

4 OA/709/2025

¶32

BANK OF BARODA VS SH. LAKHVIR SINGH THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER

¶33

years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.22,46,892.46 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Two and Paise Forty Six Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of mortgaged properties/ hypothecated assets of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶35

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this

¶38

Tribunal on 24.03.2026.

¶39

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶40

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶41

Dated: 06.03.2026.

¶42

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶43

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of Baroda v. Sh. Lakhvir Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Sh. Lakhvir Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S Pansy Inc. and Others

Sarita Kumari versus Bank of Baroda

Yushutosh and Another versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Others

Axis Bank Limited versus Ashoka Distributors and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/S Aggrwal Plastic Industries and Trading Co. and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhbir Singh @Sukhveer Singh and Others